Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @05:16PM
from the how-the-interwebs-work dept.

hhavensteincw writes "YouTube has declined a request from Sen. Joe Lieberman remove videos from terrorist organizations. Lieberman said that the videos made by groups like Al-Qaeda show assassinations, attacks on US soldiers leading to injuries and death, and weapons training, 'incendiary' speeches, and other material intended to 'encourage violence against the West.' YouTube said that while it removed some of the videos highlighted by the Senator, most were allowed to stay because they did not violate YouTube's community guidelines. YouTube went on to note that they are strong supporters of free speech."

Wow. I guess slashdotters don't appreciate sarcasm today. Let's see if I can be more straightforward:

By hosting videos from terrorist organizations, YouTube could be construed as providing communication for terrorists, which constitutes material support for terrorists. In some previous cases of alleged material support for terrorism, the government has acted aggressively (example) [wikipedia.org]. Of course this case will be handled differently, because Google is a well known organization commonly in the public eye, but I suspect the US would be much more aggressive about this "request" if it were a lesser known company. I think applying the law evenly to all potential offenders would expose the problems with current laws.

Actually, it's already been proposed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm_mark [wikipedia.org], and it's even got a name, the "snark", which I assume refers to "snarky" or perhaps is a conglomeration of "sarcasm" and "mark".

]. Of course this case will be handled differently, because Google is a well known organization commonly in the public eye, but I suspect the US would be much more aggressive about this "request" if it were a lesser known company.

Just two points. There isn't a corporation in the US that's a match against the power of the federal government. And secondly, allowing the posts to continue generates electronic evidence leading to people who may know "tarrists". The posters may not be tarrists, but there is a connection in that they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is the tarrist who filmed the video. Investigating them is a matter of unpeeling the onion skin.

The posters may not be tarrists, but there is a connection in that they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is the tarrist who filmed the video. Investigating them is a matter of unpeeling the onion skin.

I'm with you in spirit, but by that logic, anyone who posts Daily Show clips must work for Comedy Central, or know someone who is.

So in this case youtube's protection of free speech against the wishes of a US politician tends to highlight the morality of the US general public and their desire to protect free speech

While I have not seen the videos in question I would guess that many terrorist videos, or at least parts of them, cross over the line of free speech and into threats of death or severe bodily harm. If you make a threat against a person or group of people AND you have the means, motive, and opportunity to make good on your threat then you have gone beyond protected speech and entered into the realm of potentially criminal speech. If YouTube cannot or will not edit the videos to remove segments of the speeches where specific threats are made then they probably should remove the videos as the Senator suggested. On the other hand, there is some value in reminding Americans, who generally don't have first-hand knowledge of how nasty, brutish, and violent the areas outside of the first world can be, that some of our enemies would rather cut off our heads than speak with us. Talking with our enemies is important, but we must not so engage them without the threat of the stick.

Too late. Google/YouTube has been censoring anything that 'insults Islam', they deem to be 'hate speech (they don't like/disagree with it)' and several other catagories beyond their strict legal obligations. So now they take a firm stand for free speech when it comes to protecting terrorists. But post a conservative video and watch how how few complaints it takes to get it yanked.

It could just be subjective perceptions, but I think it might be possible that it may just reveal a little bit of your bias that you divide the videos into the categories "conservative" and "protecting terrorists".

Meh, calling middle-eastern nations representative of Islam is like calling America representative of Christianity. We love to say we're a Christian nation, but our actions show time and again that this is simply not the case. An outsider judging "our religion" based on our actions would conclude that Christians are hypocrites of the first order. Is that fair?

If there was more child porn on the internet it would be alot easier to catch a lot of pedos, who actually hurt children. Something like 90% of abuse comes from people they know, some freak watching some child porn isn't going to hurt any kids, but might help stop the abuse.

Child porn downloading needs to be made illegal to increase the cost of making and distributing it. That is, if downloads weren't illegal and the people downloading it weren't afraid of getting caught, their cost/benefit would be different. Making it legal to download but not to make child porn decreases the cost for consumers, which would make it more easily profitable for sellers. And for producers in foreign countries would have more direct, legit distribution. That would encourage more child porn, etc.

As it is, I see no problem with banning something heinous all the way from its act to the distribution of it, so long as the people along the way aren't paying to see said act. Creating child porn should be made as costly, as dangerous, as illegal as possible, and the dissemination of it similarly so. It's not just obscene material, which can be broadcast for the national good (such as terrorist videos, assassinations of world leaders, the WTC attacks,) it's obscene material -created- by people who sought to create obscene material and profit from it. That's the distinction. I would consider true snuff films to be in the same category. This isn't just some journalist sneaking into Burma and taping a protest and the subsequent killing of monks in order to show the world what's happening. That journalist did not cause those events to happen, he is a passive observer informing the world of a tragedy. The people shooting child porn or taking pictures of it... ugh, they are causing horrible things to happen with the intent of distributing them.

Soon you will be a felon for creating child porn in which NO children were actually abused.

Hell, why stop there, lets just make ANY picture that we don't agree with on a moral basis ILLEGAL and have a hefty jail sentence for it. I was thinking something along the lines of a law against putting government officials in an unfavorable light, what do you guys think?

Yes, welcome to the end of the world, enjoy your stay and make sure to thank the children as well as your local representative.

Both are bad and evil, but truth should always be accessible, no matter what. If you can't view truth, than you can no longer understand the world/reality around you. How can you form opinions on matters with are not part of your view of reality? How can vote? How can you understand people/groups/cultures/countries/... If you lack the necessary information to understand them? The only thing you can do is rely on some sort of authority to provide you with information/truth/whatever. (Recent) History has shown us that authorities cannot handle such responsibility. AFAIK, access to truth is one of the most basic human rights.

As for the sick bastard comment. The materials you mention do make me sick, but the don't make me a bastard per sé. It is how and why you view said materials.

Hell, every single time the US apparatus kills a non-merkun, that is animosity generated SOMEwhere, and it puts a fucking bulls eye on MY back. Going to wrong place, or just having visible a US passport not only increases the risk of being accosted, grabbed, or killed (not to mention having prices jacked up at the sound of my voice or sight of my gait or clothing or body language) makes me a target, NOT solely because of the passport but for being called a 'merkun.

A life is a life, at the individual level. It's only different for those who have bigger guns, pussies for a population, and laws to jail or contain those who speak out.

LET ME DECIDE what I'll watch. So far, to my recollection, i have YET to bother watching the beheading of any nationality. Not out of respect for the dead, but just because of personal preference to not make it a thing to do or repeat.

If the USA doesn't want to see 'merkuns coming home in body bags nor be executed/murdered/butchered, then all it has to do is stop bombing, stop killing, and stop strong-arming and stop acting as if people who have grievances against the US don't have to right to get some rep. The more repugnant the public finds the ACT of murder (as opposed to recoiling over the mere existence of a video that depicts the murder) then maybe the more backbone the 'merkun people will grow out of concern for it's IMAGE.

Right now, we do NOT deserve that much respect. Plain fuckin' period. Trinkets, bravado, money, power, guns, steel, rockets, and freedom for me don't mean SHIT when some asshole decides to kill in my name, steal in my name, plunder in my name, and risk my well being to keep goods rolling and oil flowing when MOST of the bullshit is something i OUGHT not be buying in the first place, or certainly could buy less of it.

There. I speak for myself, even if others agree. Sometimes, I'll assert my opinion has a moral priority over others', and with or without agreement, i will stand my ground. Don't FUCKING KILL in MY name and expect me to ignore it or forgive it or play like every single one of the attacked was wrong or was a threat to ME or even "the system". Otherwise, the populace deserves to be wiped out by plague, pestilence, famine, nature, or even any pot-shot-taking ETs that happen to notice our repugnant leaders and, worse, our general total ineffectiveness to reign in the corrupt.

Congress and the Senate need to remember that when you tell someone NOT to see a movie, they go see it. Assigning an R-Rating to a movie or film just increases viewership. Leaving it UNRATED might do even more to increase viewership.

They will comply with a lawful order. They will even comply with the law when a notice of violation of that law is delivered to them.

What law does Senator Lieberman allege that Google/YouTube has violated?

Oh that's right... NONE... What's more... a letter from a US Senator is just.... a letter.It has no legal force whatsoever.

If you want to compel action, go to the table with evidence of a crime. Otherwise understand that your request can be ignored. I'm surprised they even responded, or acknowledged this stuff to the press.

Somebody at Google is having a good laugh at a Senator who seems to think his word is law.

For some reason, when I posted the publicly available court cases for my county, a local real estate company hired a lawyer to send me a letter demanding that I remove this as it was 'possibly libelous'.

There were also claims of copryright, and trademark violations in the letter. Along with threatening me to have the information tunred over for possible CRIMINAL charges. Keep in mind these sites did not sell any product, or service of any kind.

Oh, it also demanded that I turn over my legally owned domains to the lawyers client, free of charge.

The company who did this was Caton Commercial [willcounty...tcourt.com], and yes that is a link to the current pending cases against them at my county courthouse. And also, the Cease and Desist Letter [demystify.info] can also be read online.

What a pathetic way to run a business, or conduct yourself with respect to others differing views.

I think you misunderstand. They remove videos critical of Scientology. I remember seeing one video produced by the "religion" featured on the YouTube homepage.

Featuring such a video does look nearly hypocritical to me. A related problem fresh on my mind is YouTube's habit of suspending good accounts. It looks like most everything is automated, so people need only attract a few malicious trolls to get the boot. With so many people getting suspended and so many videos being pulled under false pretenses, it's just strange to see them taking a stand like this. It's strange to see them paying attention to the content they're hosting.

Don't overreact, Scientology has strongarmed many large organizations into removing material under threat of copyright infringement, and Google/Youtube would not be the first to follow up on the DMCA requests filed by Scientology. Moreover, unless the people whose videos were petitioned to be removed file counter-DMCA requests, Google cannot "man up" and defend them. If they ignore one DMCA request in the interest of not doing evil, they can become legally responsible for that material. This vastly increase

The DMCA (or specifically, DMCA Title II, OCILLA [wikipedia.org]) legally requires them to take down the material when a copyright claim is put forward, such as the ones the Church of Scientology / RTC sends, in order to avoid any legal liability due to the safe harbor provisions in the law. The person who then posted the video can send a counter-notice to YouTube to get them to put the video back up; it's then a matter for the courts to decide (and if the person claiming infringement does go to the courts, the material stays down until they have ruled on the matter).

IANAL, this is not legal advice, this is just how I understand it. You can't blame YouTube for wanting to keep their service provider safe harbor limited liability; otherwise, they'd be sued out of existence every time someone posted a music video.

perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other anti-american propaganda.

kinda hard to tell without a list of them, but if this is the case, i dont see a problem at all.

perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other Anti-American propaganda.

I think the ones with the beheadings and stonings and abuse of women are the most important to keep. They show the true face of Militant Islam and Sharia Law. It's easy to make a convincing Anti-American propaganda video, we make lots of mistakes and some of them are quite shameful (Gitmo and Katrina come to mind) but let not forget to closely examine what our critics are proposing to replace our imperfect America with.

Someone needs to pull Lieberman aside explain to him meaning of "the only thing you have to fear is fear itself." Fight lies and propaganda with truth and transparency, not secrets and censorship.

Bullshit, not because they won't remove videos, but because youtube is notorious for removing "offensive" material--whether it's insulting women or even something like bashing religion, presumably because people don't like having their dogmas trampled-- or just plain removing material on rather spurious grounds, and I'm not even talking about removing videos wrongly due to DMCA complaints.

Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.

Thank you, this can't be said often enough. YouTube has no problem leaving up videos from Islamists and neonazis calling for the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of women, Christians, pagans, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't follow those groups agendas. But post one video detailing what those groups believe, and your account will get turned off before you can say "Godwin".

Did the same person actually write both, or what?New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Some Terrorist Videos

or...

New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Most Terrorist Videos

Then again, wth is a "terrorist video"? A video with terrorists in it? A video with a religious leader spouting extremist ideas in it? What?

Anyway... the ones that -were- removed where apparently removed for violating YouTube's own community 'rules';"Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines." - http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16037 [axcessnews.com]

Sounds 'sane' enough (not too sure about the hate speech thing, but if YouTube comments are any indication, I wouldn't want to see the insult-and-flamefest that youtube would become if every 13-year old could spout their hatred for another YouTube user in a video.

During the 1980's and 1990's, Maggie Thatcher had a policy of not reporting speeches made by terrorist leaders. The idea was to "cut off their oxygen supply of publicity". Funny how trying to do that now, would just force people to visit alternative news channels, broadcasters or websites.

This smells like a stunt. Lieberman was probably expecting them to refuse him entirely, and use that to incite outrage to further his agenda. It looks like Youtube saw through it, and took the responsible course of action by fairly applying their community standards. Now Lieberman will have to openly admit that he wants to limit free speech if he wants to push this further, because he can't claim that they're unfairly supporting one viewpoint by keeping the majority of the content which did not violate the standards.

This smells like a stunt. Lieberman was probably expecting them to refuse him entirely, and use that to incite outrage to further his agenda. It looks like Youtube saw through it, and took the responsible course of action by fairly applying their community standards. Now Lieberman will have to openly admit that he wants to limit free speech if he wants to push this further, because he can't claim that they're unfairly supporting one viewpoint by keeping the majority of the content which did not violate the

Google didn't seem to have much support for freedom of speech when they assisted the government of India in locating a man who posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. [slashdot.org] Strong supporters of freedom of speech indeed - right up until the protection of a user's right to freedom of speech threatens to strain Google's political relationships with distant countries where labor and data center construction are cheap.

If I owned a multinational enterprise and as such, am bound by the laws of the country I do business in, I would definitly behave differently from country to country. If I don't like the country's privacy laws (or lack thereof) its my choice to stop doing business there. It isn't my right to break their laws based on my own egocentric view of the world.

I don't know the case that happened in India, but if the indian police issued a -legal- subpoena for the offender's identifying information, I wouldn't break their laws since it would probably mean:
1. huge fines
2. complete bar from doing business in the country

Free speech is always important, but we always have limits. In a time of war, when we're asking young men and women to risk their right to life, is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people who are encouraging the killing of not only those men and women, but of ourselves and our friends?

Can't Youtube voluntarily add something to their guidelines like "Don't post stuff that supports terrorism or undermines the national security of the country where Youtube is located? The global economy is nice, but they're still Americans and those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dying for them, and the Youtube owners are still as much targets of the terrorists as the people in the Twin Towers and the United airplanes were.

Well in "real war" you have a very well defined enemy. Such agenuine war would make it much more easy to sort out who's who.The current undeclared war against no one in particular makessorting out of the usual "aid and comfort to the enemy" moredifficult.

There isn't any enemy capitol for young hollywood starlets togo to so they can pose on an enemy tank...

Broadcasting terrorist videos isn't a matter of free speech - it's a matter of supporting terrorism. Of course the American TV networks do the same thing by eagerly broadcasting bin Laden's videos for him as fast as he provides them, but one might have expected a bit better from Google/YouTube.Maybe Google doesn't consider supporting terrorism to be evil?

The other interesting thing to note is that Bush, despite all the constitutionally protected rights he's willing to trample over, still apparently thinks i

Yes, we always have limits, but the devil's in the details as they say. For example, do you think you can institute a rule like "undermines the national security" with any degree of agreement on what constitutes undermining? If posting these videos undermines the country, does not it also undermine the country to reveal corruption and illegal activities in our own government?

While I have sympathy for what you'd like to achieve, the freedoms involved are too fundamental to be manipulated like that. Suppress

Finally, someplace where this quote is appropriate:"Sir, why do you hate America?"

See, The point of freedom of speech isn't for the stuff you like. It's for the stuff you hate, that makes you want to puke or hurt someone. That's the kind of speech that the first amendment is designed to protect.

So, please, go and read the Constitution and realize that the government isn't there to change your wetnaps and wipe your nose, it's there to protect you against real violence. Speech isn't violence and shouldn't be treated as such.

I don't hate America; I realize that America has a long time of curtailing freedoms during wartime, and even outside of wartime, for the sake of national defense so that freedoms can be protected.

Did you know, for example, that the people in our "volunteer military" aren't allowed to leave if they change their minds? Outside of national defense, this would be considered a form of slavery and would not be permitted. You can't sell yourself into slavery or even rent yourself into slavery as a civilian. But when you joint the military, that's essentially what you are.

And for most of our history when our freedoms have been threatened by violence, we've resorted to pressing young men into involuntary servitude to do difficult and dangerous work. And yes, one of the freedoms they lose when that happens is freedom of speech.

This youtube thing wouldn't be a complete revocation of free speech, but would be measured in response to the threats we face.

Free speech is always important, but we always have limits. In a time of war, when we're asking young men and women to risk their right to life, is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people who are encouraging the killing of not only those men and women, but of ourselves and our friends?

Ask yourself why these men and women are risking their lives. Part of the reason is in defense of the US Constitution. I say this because I believe it. I was Active Duty while (arguably) this mess began - the Gulf War, the bombing of Khobar Towers (Dharahn used to be the cushy TDY before that). And while I did what I did for money, family, and friends... I also swore to defend the US Constitution.

It irks me to no end when people wrap themselves in the flag while failing to uphold the very core values that makes the US great. Even worse is when they actively erode those values - work to undermine our basic rights - undo the US Constitution.

I found the insurgent videos to be, well lacking in their musical choice. However, they provided an excellent view into the operations of the insurgents. We sometimes would watch them just to get a better idea about them.

And the Uhm Kfar (spelling?) video did have some hella tight beats.

You know...once this whole world-struggle for ideologies (this really isn't about Iraq, as far as the insurgents see it) is over, we are gonna sit down, have some beers, and play our videos together, and laugh about the old times.

They are going to post their videos on some site... we certainly post ours. Why shouldn't a US company get the ad revenue?

Also an interesting movie I watched recently was "suicide killers". It contains many interviews with suicide bombers right before they kill themselves, and many interviews with failed suicide bombers in Israeli prisons.

Maybe I am just strange, but I find it absolutely fascinating how a group of people can have such a strong hatred of Israel. It's a really fucked up situation for both sides, but I think it is very important for both sides to be heard.

Maybe I am just strange, but I find it absolutely fascinating how a group of people can have such a strong hatred of Israel.

That one's really easy.

Take a look at a map. Find Israel. Nice, small country, eh? Then find Gaza and west-bank on the map.. and then stop to think for a few seconds. Put aside your feelings, old thoughts on who did what to who when and why, push the horror-stories away.. and just stop to consider the underlying basics in this conflict...

.. because in the end, what you're left with is this; There are 'provinces' (or states) in Israel, where the inhabitants have no legal rights. Nobody recognizes them as seperate states, they have no control over their own air-space or their own borders, and they have no voting rights in the nation they're supposed to belong to according to the map.

In other words, apartheid. It's that simple. The current situation is completely amoral and completely unacceptable. Israel should either work on incorporating the occupied terrorities into their own state, or work on getting the hell out.. and I'm absolutely flabbergasted we're actually trading with them. They should have been trade-boycotted to hell and back a long time ago.

Free speech is fine: the GOVERNMENT/STATE should never forbid speech of any kind (with the reasonable restriction on things like child pornography et cetera.)

A private organization saying hey we won't allow mass murders to post propaganda on our site is not the same. I am willing to bet YouTube would feel different if the US Gov't posted overt propaganda videos on YouTube.

should never forbid speech of any kind (with the reasonable restriction on things

Your statement sums up the entire crux of this debate. What is okay for one person/race/group may not be the same for people/races/groups.

I wonder what the muslim world would say if the US posted a video or two of some captured arab getting his head hacked off while the US soldiers around what was happening oozed with anti arab sentiment.

Yet the US continues to harbour Luis Posada Carriles, who is suspect of bombing a Cuban airliner. Venezuela has been trying to get him extradited for years, but the US refuses. The last time a country refused to hand over suspected terrorists, it was invaded as a result. That country was of course, Afghanistan.

I am deeply disturbed that the US government is censoring information. This shows that the US government is now operating in total defiance of the US constitution and of human rights, along with the fact it is now engaging in torture of prisoners and indefinite detainments without trail and charges and so on. No government should be allowed to censor information or violate human rights in other ways. We should not allow a government to decide what people can and cant look at. Once we allow this, there is little stop this from getting more and more unreasonable. One minute it could be terrorist videos, another minute it could be videos say uncovering toxic pollution of the environment by a company (this, according to the increasingly vague definition of terrorism, I am sure could eventually be called a terrorist act because it threatens corporate profits and tries to alert the public so they will demand the government stop the pollution).

Free speech is a very important right and why the drafters of the US constitution did not include any provision for it to be suspended. This is because it is difficult to define what is bad law or a good law in a constitution. The founders understood that if there are unjust laws in the books, that with free speech the people have an opportunity to help abolish bad laws. Its obviously a bad law to place a $500 fine on jaywalking but difficult to draft a constitution that is able to explicitely prohibit all kinds of such bad legislation.

Governments role is not to decide what we are allowed to look at and to control speech. We see the government increasingly doing things it has no business doing, such as invading our privacy and censorship, and engaging in illegal wars, and doing less of what it should be doing and that is helping people who are in need through health care, affordable housing, employment and unemployement insurance, and so on. We need to demand government stop the censorship, the torture, the surveillance to create a prison state to enslave people and start serving the people again and truly protecting peoples freedom, which does not mean censorship torture, and in other ways taking away peoples freedoms and so on.

My passport gives detailed instructions on how to give up my American citizenship. One can't become "ungerman" or "unjewish."For instance, if I tell you my name is Pat Murphy (which it is not), you might/assume/ I'm Catholic. However, I might be protestant, atheist, agnostic or pagan. However, my Irishness is not in doubt.

Similarly, if my name is Saul Bergersteinowitzskimanheimer, it doesn't matter if I show up to Bill Grahm, Jr.'s every Sunday morning. I'm a Jew.

Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.

Showing their videos is a great way to keep them from ever becoming in charge. Idiots are their own worse enemies.

If Lieberman succeeds in concealing that murderers are in favor of committing murder, then the murderers win. Personally, I hope Lieberman rethinks his values, and comes back over to the anti-murder/anti-Nazi side.

This is America, not France/*insertshittyeuropeancountryhere* where the muslims are allowed to run free protesting all the values of western civilization (freedom) and calling for the beheading and execution of anyone who even talks negatively about islam, let alone draws a cartoon.

Nah, Islam's not allowed to do that, instead we just have people saying 9/11 occurred because we haven't killed / locked up all the homosexuals, atheists, and Jews. And these people are not only allowed on TV after having said this, are actually well respected members of the national community.

As a European (British) I would like to point out there is no chance of most of Europe turning into a muslim state. Most of us over here supported the authors of those comics, as did our governments. There were lots of loony Muslims out campaigning for some stupid fatwa or something, but who cares. That is the joy of free speech, getting to ignore pathetic hatemongering individuals who don't understand that without it they would be unable to open their mouths at all.

If we do anything else in regards to stopping religious loonies being able to practice, march or gather in public places we begin curtailing the freedoms that we hold so dear to begin with and are no better than them. Anyway, watching them whine and burn effegies of some guy who only drew a cartoon gives alot of us even more reason to poke fun at some peoples serious lack of perspective.

The following quote is one I have always identified with in matters such as these:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

As a European (British) I would like to point out there is no chance of most of Europe turning into a muslim state.

Right. I'll bet the Serbs said the same thing about Kosovo - and now look at them. Post WW2 the population of Kosovo was about half Serbian and half Albanian Muslim. Today it's something like 97% Muslim, and more and more Serbs are forced out every day. Kosovo has gone from being a part of Serbia to being it's own mini-state which is more or less part of Albania. It's annexation through ov

Right. I'll bet the Serbs said the same thing about Kosovo - and now look at them. Post WW2 the population of Kosovo was about half Serbian and half Albanian Muslim.

Amazing, isn't it, given the ethnic cleansing of the native Albanian population by the Serbs under Milosevic. Interesting thing about Kosovo -- it was created as a province of Yugoslavia in 1945 to protect its ethnic Albanian majority. If it was ever half Serbian, it was so because native Kosovans were rounded up and executed. Or maybe you missed that? At any rate, the notion that it was half Serbian at the end of WW2 is poppycock.

Today it's something like 97% Muslim, and more and more Serbs are forced out every day.

I hate to say this, but if you pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing in a place that doesn't belong to you, you're not going to be well liked.

Kosovo has gone from being a part of Serbia to being it's own mini-state which is more or less part of Albania. It's annexation through overpopulation.

Both Serbia and Kosovo were part of Yugoslavia until relatively recently, which was not Serbia. Before that, Kosovo was part of the Kingdom of Serbia -- from 1912 onwards. Before that, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Where exactly do you get the idea that it should be part of Serbia? Serbia held Kosovo for *gasp* 3 years until the great Serbian retreat of 1915.

Or look at Israel - a Jewish state which is facing the very real possibility that within a generation they may become majority Muslim. At which point they have the option of either ceasing to be a Jewish state, or ceasing to be a democracy.

This Jewish state was not a Jewish state but a Muslim state until 1948. While 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes to create this "land without a people for people without a land", a few hundred thousand did stay in the ancestral home they'd resided in for millenia and, as it happens, raised their families and reproduced. The shock of it!

What you say is true, though: they are reproducing faster than the Jewish majority in Israel, and in a few generations, they will have a majority. Israel has already decided how to proceed with this, though. They'll be a democracy in much the same way South Africa was a democracy.

If you really think it can't happen in England, you haven't been paying attention.

The idea that "this could happen in England" completely ignores the historical backdrop. Muslims that come to England, with the exception of a few raving loonies, mostly integrate into English society just fine. And make British food a bit more edible in the process, for which they are to be commended.

Well, before being renamed, it was actually Land of Canaan inhabited by the Canaanites - the Israelites rolled down circa 1500BC with the breakup of the Egyptian empire:)

Quite true. I think the point is that ignorant comments such as "Israel would be returning to the people who originally lived there" serve no purpose other than to further entrench the various factions. Who gives a shit who lived there. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians, or to the Egyptians, or even to the Brits, would make about as much sense as demanding that the US be turned over to the Ojibwa, or the Mohawk. It is truly embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent and well educated people making such ridiculous arguments.

To claim that allowing repugnant political views to be published and discussed should be prevented to better preserve political freedoms is hypocritical in the first degree. Moreover, full and frank disclosure and discussion is useful: To let terrorists disclose their arguments in public, and to allow those arguments to be debated and defeated in public, introduces appropriate counterarguments into the public consciousness, ensures that those same arguments can no longer be used as convincingly in private (where the lack of public debate might otherwise make them convincing), and makes claims of coverup and large-scale media conspiracy less convincing. As such claims of conspiracy reduce credibility of non-terrorist-controlled information sources, any action which might lend them credence should be clearly avoided whenever possible.

The military battle should be as asymmetric as possible; the public relations battle, on the other hand, should be fought fairly, convincingly, and in full view of the public if it is to be effective. Just as we should not practice waterboarding even if the other side does beheadings, we should not practice even mild censorship of political speech; we need not do either to win, and taking any such actions reduces our credibility and moral standing in the eyes of the world -- including those who might be recruited to either side.

it doesnt happen with 'coup'. it happens with 'boarding schools' which take in children of ages 7 to 18. they run these 'charities' for children who cant afford a good education. they brainwash kids there. also they tell their supporters to multiply like madmen. results are phenomenonal.

Seriously, "our" brand of fanaticism is no worse, no better, than "theirs" -- "their" PR departments just don't have control of the media like "ours". (Note that inside "their" bubble, it's the exact reverse -- that's why you don't hear about Al Sadir or whatever his name is being run out of town.)

The difference: the Irish preferred not to die for their cause. The Islamic Fascists are supranational and would relish to die for theirs. They want to rule the world (literally) and force their religion on everyone. They have no dreams of independence. They do speak. And when they do, they frequently remind us that they are just cleansing the immoral from the earth and asking Americans (and other westerners) to repent and turn to Islam. Otherwise they simply want to kill us all or die trying. So they state three acceptable outcomes: we all become muslim; they kill all non-muslims; all of them die.

It's not a political battle - it's a holy war. The difference is that it isn't between Christianity and Islam (or Hindu and Islam) it's between secular government and Islam. Fortunately there is an identifiable enemy: pre-dominantly men who belief in a twisted version of Islam.

Bottom line: You can't compare this to the dispute between the British and the IRA.

they'd have to somehow sneak 57 million muslims into my country to make me a minority - - 2.9 million a year for 20 years.

somehow I don't feel threatened by that. our coastal defences might be a bit naff but they aren't that bad... Oh and European law will protect us from the ludicrous notion of sharia in the UK. Cheers:-)

Ah, mirroring the story, the moderators, too, want to suppress opinions or statements that differ from their own personal views.

You're wrong, and Lieberman is wrong. These terrorists are evil, but it is stupid to try to silence them. Americans need to know about them and their message in order to make informed decisions as citizens.

So Bhutto's assasination should have been censored? Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that. Heck, how many 100's of hours of television shows and or movies are dedicated to the Kennedy assisination. Profiting over video of an assisination or terrorist act is not illegal when Americans want it to be seen. - heck - imagine it illegal to watch the world trade center fall. How many news organizations in the US sold ads for that newsworthy event?

Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that

That's close to the truth. One call back to Langley and Google would have been told to ignore old Joe. They want this stuff shown. Who would host their Osama videos? It's one arrow in the quiver for keeping us scared and throwing bags of money at them. They want to eliminate these videos from YouTube as much as anti-virus companies want people to stop writing viruses.

Now if AQ were to start making videos of calm, reasonable arguments of their grievances THAT would have to stop.

It's questionable if it's protected speech. I haven't personally seen any of those clips. But I'm not so sure that it's going to pass the Miller test for obscenity or the fighting words doctrine.

Whether it would pass either of those tests would largely depend upon context, terrorist recruitment videos aren't ever going to pass. Showing videos of crimes, in an effort to recruit people to commit more crimes, is not ever going to be protected speech in the US.

If this were being used in an objective report by a journalist, that would more likely than not pass the tests and be protected. Possible also if it were part of a world's blankiest blank show. As dubious as that second one is, there are more than enough shows of that sort to justify it, as poor as the taste would have to be to show it.

For instance the 9/11 planes hitting the towers was never questioned as legitimate when accompanied with the news, adding a voice over to join Al Quaeda and commit that sort of atrocity yourself wouldn't be protected.

America deliberately act against its own interest. Why should America act contrary to its interests?

You assume that the interests of America (as represented by the incumbent elected officials) is the same as interests of America (the general populace) or the same as the interests of America (the Platonic Ideal put forth by our founding fathers and daydreamed of by starry-eyed libertarians). Those in power take actions based on staying in power. The general populace takes actions based on increasing wealth and/or comfort. Platonic Ideals are talking points not action points, they almost never result in real world actions.

Last time I checked, people who are not citizens of these great United States of America are not entitled to protections offered under the bill of rights.

Actually, since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land (and by extension, the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution), it applies to any person or entity operating on U.S. soil, whether or not they are citizens. This is why it's not legal to murder illegal immigrants, for example -- they still have rights that are recognized, and they don't need to be citizens of the U.S. to be afforded basic rights.

So, sorry to burst your bubble, but if a jihadist publishes a video through YouTube, that video has First Amendment protections, by virtue of the fact that YouTube is owned by Google (a U.S. company operating in the United States) and by virtue of the place where the material is "published" -- regardless of where the author might reside. So YouTube can't be legally compelled to censor said video.

Freedom of Speech applies universally in the United States, not just to speech that you agree with, and not just to people you happen to like. That's why you can run out and buy a copy of Mein Kampf in this country, and why we have a Nazi party here when the same political party is outlawed in Germany. If the First Amendment only applied to citizens, the effect on any kind of diplomatic or political discourse would be chilling to say the least... not to mention the effect on the cultural contributions of foreign authors. Picture an America devoid of Harry Potter because some religious nutbag in the government decided that J.K. Rowling was promoting witchcraft.